Talk:King Joseph of Lovia
Finally, a person who believes in God! --Brenda Young 20:11, December 25, 2009 (UTC) :Sorry to tell, he's in the heavens right now 20:17, December 25, 2009 (UTC) 1905 & 1948 I think it is highly unlikely they had a son in 1905. Lucy was born in 1894 which would make her 11 years old at the birth of her oldest son and 54 when her youngest was born in 1948... pretty strange. The Master's Voice 19:51, May 18, 2011 (UTC) :The son born in 1905 is only Joseph's. HORTON11 19:53, May 18, 2011 (UTC) 'kay. Also: how would you explain that both Joseph and Lucy died in the same year after the miraculous birth of their last son? Apparantly they where very vital people, why did they then die so suddenly and shortly after one another? The Master's Voice 19:53, May 18, 2011 (UTC) :Also strange: Lucy died of a cancer the same year she alledgedly gave birth to her last kid... The Master's Voice 19:54, May 18, 2011 (UTC) ::That I didn't write. Maybe we can change it to make it more plausible. HORTON11 19:56, May 18, 2011 (UTC) :::I think that would be better... It is very strange she had a son in 1948 at the age of 54... whatever happened to menopause? Besides, she was in ill health by then as she died the same year. There are a lot of strange inaccuries in these articles that need to be fixed and deserve explanation. The Master's Voice 19:59, May 18, 2011 (UTC) I think that we should move up Lucas's birth to around 1915-1920, and Arthur's to 1925-1930. Thomas's should be booted back to 1940-1945. And we could condense it further too. —TimeMaster (talk • ) 20:02, May 18, 2011 (UTC) Sure. We can also use better pictures, since the current ones don't look to royal. HORTON11 20:05, May 18, 2011 (UTC) :Sounds more realistic indeed, Timemaster. Although I suppose we could keep Arthur and Lucas' birth dates as there isn't anything wrong with those. So the Queen was a young mother, nothing unusual about that. What is unusual is how far the first and last kid are apart. We should indeed make Thomas much, much younger. The the 1920s or at latest the 1930s, I'd say. The Master's Voice 20:07, May 18, 2011 (UTC) ::I don't think having kids at only eighteen and nineteen is perfect. We should move it up five years. Let's say Lucas at 1917, and Arthur at 1919 (or 1918 if you prefer them close). Thomas can be 1943. —TimeMaster (talk • ) 20:10, May 18, 2011 (UTC) ::The first tow are good, but we need to keep in mind that Thomas is Dimitri's father, and the king is quite young. HORTON11 20:11, May 18, 2011 (UTC) :::Yes, that's why I didn't put it as low as Master's Voice requested. —TimeMaster (talk • ) 20:12, May 18, 2011 (UTC) ::@TM: 'm not saying it is perfect, am I? I'm just saying that given the time being, it is not at all unlikely. Also, possibly, the First and Last child could have be a little accidant. The Master's Voice 20:12, May 18, 2011 (UTC) :::Horton: Like his brother Arthur Thomas could have fathered a child late in life. That, too, isn't a very unlikely scenario. The Master's Voice 20:13, May 18, 2011 (UTC) ::::Very strange, I read in Prince Thomas of Lovia: "Prince Thomas and Sarah Romano married in 1989, when he was 41 and she was 29. Their late marriage and the age differences between them were the reason for much criticism"... how is 29 and 41 a "controversial age difference"?? If he'd be 50+ it would have been more correct. Say we make him ten years older? The Master's Voice 20:16, May 18, 2011 (UTC) :::::Well, 12 is stretching it, but you are right in it not being a controversial age difference. BTW, two days ago I removed the thing about Sarah dying from cancer, and changed it to her dying in the same car crash Thomas died in. There are too many royal cancer deaths. —TimeMaster (talk • ) 20:18, May 18, 2011 (UTC) ::::::Them dying in the same car crahs is a good solution. A bit cliché though, but realistic. We could also have him survive and outlive her by some years, then dying of grief. Add some drama. The Master's Voice 20:20, May 18, 2011 (UTC) :::::::Indeed, 12 is stretching it. It would have never been "real controversial", just reason for minor gossip. If he'd be ten years older (making Lucy 44 at his birth, already quite old for a mother) the difference would be bigger and thus more likely to have caused a scandal. The Master's Voice 20:21, May 18, 2011 (UTC) ::::::::I have Sarah dying on the scene, but Thomas making it to a hospital and living on life support for a day and a half before dying. Maybe we should put Thomas's birth at 1940 or 1939? —TimeMaster (talk • ) 20:23, May 18, 2011 (UTC) :::::::::1940 or 1939 is a bit too late if you ask me, given Lucy's age (it would make her 45 or 46 at his birth). I'd say he was born somewhere after 1930 yet before 1938. The Master's Voice 20:25, May 18, 2011 (UTC) :Let's have Sarah born on 1950. That will make her 45 (relatively old, but not unreasonable) when Alexander is born, and only eleven years difference from Thomas. —TimeMaster (talk • ) 20:27, May 18, 2011 (UTC) ::No, 1960 is okay. 1956 at most. An eleven year difference isn't controversial, especially not at that age. The Master's Voice 20:29, May 18, 2011 (UTC) :::Wait, you want the controversial age difference? O_o Okay. I don't support it though. —TimeMaster (talk • ) 20:32, May 18, 2011 (UTC) ::::Well it is something the King invented. Why change it then without a good reason? All I suggest is to change the date Thomas was born and set it back at least ten years. The Master's Voice 20:34, May 18, 2011 (UTC) :::::Exactly ten years would do (1936). And let's put Sarah at 1956. —TimeMaster (talk • ) 20:36, May 18, 2011 (UTC) :::::What if we made prince Thomas a son of Lucas I, born after his abdication. That would reduce the age difference between him and his wife.HORTON11 20:36, May 18, 2011 (UTC) ::::::Could we also allow adoptive children to be in the line of succession? HORTON11 20:38, May 18, 2011 (UTC) :::::::So that you can have your obscure Brunant Family take over the throne? Lol... . We could include the, yet not as high. The Master's Voice 20:41, May 18, 2011 (UTC) ::::::::No, no adoptive or illegitimate children should be in the line of succession. —TimeMaster (talk • ) 20:44, May 18, 2011 (UTC) :::::::::I don't want them taking over the throne, but just recognizing them. HORTON11 20:45, May 18, 2011 (UTC) ::::::::::I don't have a problem with it, really. They could take over as a last resort if all biological descendents die out (which I think is highly unlikey if we include Arthur's descendents). The Master's Voice 20:47, May 18, 2011 (UTC) ::::::::::Recognizing them is fine, but I don't think they should be in the line of succession. And don't make too many adopted brunant royals, please. <-- read that last sentence. —TimeMaster (talk • ) 20:48, May 18, 2011 (UTC) :::::::::::There's only one adopted Brunanter in the Lovian royal family (and he's dead). His kids are alive though HORTON11 20:50, May 18, 2011 (UTC) :Is it Pieter Joseph Van Draak or someone else? Okay, here is my proposal on the birth dates: Lucas, 1917, Arthur, 1919, Thomas, 1938. —TimeMaster (talk • ) 20:52, May 18, 2011 (UTC) ::There are his children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren of the adopted son... there are quite a few today. I say recognize them as a part of the family - yet only include biological relatives in the Line of Succession. They should all be direct descendants from Arthur I. The Master's Voice 20:53, May 18, 2011 (UTC) ::@TM: Agreed on the dates. The Master's Voice 20:54, May 18, 2011 (UTC) :::Agreed. —TimeMaster (talk • ) 20:55, May 18, 2011 (UTC) ::::Pieter has only 7 living descendants (all of which are in line to the Brunanter throne), and two of them take precedence in the Brunanter line, ahead of the Lovian of succession. Also, his descendants are related by blood to Joseph, which should include them in the line of succession. This would also include King Dimitri in the Brunanter line (at #23, since he is the great-grandson of the King's (Marten II) mother's sister's ::::HORTON11 21:38, May 18, 2011 (UTC) :::: A Prince of Belgium? Wabba The I (talk) 15:13, December 7, 2016 (UTC)